Deflating BIG BANG’s Inflation.

A BIG NOISE DOES NOT BIG SCIENCE MAKE.

Abstract: The Big Bang cosmological model is possibly completely false. It depends alarmingly upon the speed of expansion of the universe, assuming that, for reason and mechanism unknown, it was, at some point, for some convenient duration, trillions of trillions of times the speed of light. Or maybe not.

I give also a few other reasons to throw cold water on the Big Bang.

Geometrically the Big Bang assumes that it is “turtles all the way down”. Yet, Quantum Physics, properly interpreted, gives us reasons to think otherwise. Especially after integrating the latest experimental results on the apparent singularization of Quantum waves (2011). (If that gets confirmed, singularization is the greatest discovery in Quantum Physics since 1924: Louis De Broglie would be right, and Niels Bohr, wrong. I have always believed in singularization.)

It is unfortunate that this activity, Big Bang physics, has been all too much celebrated as the greatest success of the human spirit, and scientific rigor. I will try to show below that it is closer to mythology than to proper science. Although my reasons below are deep and cogent, it is clear that even the masses have some intuitive doubts about scientists who seem all too sure about the grandest scheme of things. Having Hawking telling us about “AShort History of Time“, when nobody knows what time is, is not conducive to respect.

No wonder that, with such a model as the Big Bang brandished all the time as science much to admire, and presumably to emulate, all too many people feel that with science, anything goes. And thus, as often found in the USA, in a further identification, that anything goes is science. So to each its own. And next thing you know, fundamentalists pop up in every backyard.

On the positive side, Big Bang madness gives an opportunity to illustrate the fact that the topology of the space of all theories is not connected (if a single one of a few hypotheses Big Bangists make casually, is false, the Big Bang theory will completely implode into the nothingness it claims the universe arises from!)

[The essay is technical in parts; readers are invited to imitate Big Bang physicists, and jump over any part they don’t understand, to get a feeling for the overall message, which is that Big Bang physics is not science according to the most exacting standards of science… Paradoxically enough for an area with such pretense!]

***

***

A physicist relates in “Turtles all The Way Down?”that he got an interesting email about the Big Bang. Basically the writer said it was obvious mythology, and the physicist insisted it was not so: “The writer said she didn’t see how you could make something out of nothing. She collects creation myths and thought that, no matter how you sliced it, it’s always “turtles all the way down.” This is a reference to creation myths where the world is poised on top of a turtle, which is itself poised on top of something else, but raises the issue: Is there any firm ground?

This is worth addressing because it illustrates the gulf between the understandings in people’s minds about the Big Bang on one hand, and how physicists deal with it on the other. To be clear – we have a wealth of observations that support the Big Bang, but you have to be careful. We can only look back into the universe to a moment 300,000 years after the ‘start,’ as best we can discern it.At this early moment, the universe went from being opaque to transparent… The remnant photons from this time are seen as the so-called cosmic microwave radiation “

The later pontificating affirmation depends upon the common wisdom interpretation of the 3 degree Kelvin Cosmic Microwave Radiation asphotons from the Big Bang explosion. Well, that’s mostly an hypothesis. For example, if photons, just as neutrinos (long thought to be massless), turn out to have a non zero rest mass, that hypothesis will be out of the window.

Those cosmic microwave photons are supposed to be cosmically distended, and thus weakened, by the expansion of their wave packets from the cosmic expansion of space, the later itself depending upon the Big Bang model. This is just a supposition, albeit a crucial one. In other words, the Big Bang model is eerily reminiscent of a house of cards of mutually supporting assertions: turtles all the way down in a mutually supporting circle.

I will argue that it looks all too much as a vicious circle to be used as a way to illustrate what science is. Science is about establishing iron clad proofs, not wishful thinking with proofs depending upon what they want to demonstrate (which is all what the interpretation of cosmic photons as big bangers is).

Reconciling models with data sounds reasonable. That is what is done in most of science. However it is not scientific, if the models have nothing to do with reality to start with. If the model is angels on a pinhead, no amount of tweaking of the model, will get it right.

This is related to a much more general problem, that of the distance between systems of thought (which is all what “models” are). If models are too far from each other, they cannot morphed into each other.

When Darwinian style models were unable to explain ultra fast adaptative evolution, epigenetics had to be invented.

The greatest discovery in cosmology since the discovery of the expansion has been the fact that it proceeded at an accelerating pace. That was not predicted by the main stream cosmology.

It was pointed out by De Sitter (1917), Friedman (1924) and Lemaître(1927) that the Einstein gravity equation described an expanding universe (none of these scientists were American).

The work of a number of astronomers, culminating with Hubble, confirmed the expansion later: the visible universe was dynamic. As an homage to American hegemony, Lemaître’s law came to be known as Hubble Law. Never mind that Hubble himself as late as 1936, did not believe in the Big Bang finding weird the “anomaly of a curiously small and dense and… suspiciously young universe”. Besides the injustice, it introduces a flaw in the logical flow of discovery.

When it became obviously confirmed that distant galaxies were receding, and the further, the faster, Einstein proclaimed his “greatest blunder”, that of having introduced a “Cosmological Constant”, precisely to imply a static universe.

The Einstein gravity field equation was built to reflect Riemann’s 1854 idea on the nature of force. That came out of his Habilitationsschrift entitled Über die Hypothesen welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen (“On the hypotheses which underlie geometry“), a remarkable essay that contained just one equation (if that). Riemann observed that acceleration could be described by geodesics behavior, whether they came together, or separated. Thus force could be so described.

Basically, applied to gravity, that meant the gravity equation ought to be: curvature of spacetime = mass-energy of spacetime.

In other words, it was not turtles all the way down. At some point, the turtles turn into waves.

Einstein’s gravity equations did not incorporate matter, in a detailed way, that is, Quantum Physics. When some Quantum Field Theory ideas were introduced a bit (Zeldovich, before 1973, “Hawking radiation“, 1974), it turned out that, after all, Black Holes evaporated (contrarily to what Michell (1784) and Laplace (1796), discoverers of the idea of Black Holes would have expected to be ever possible in the slightest way).

But much more needs to be done: except when wave packets have collapsed, matter is all waves. The exact nature of these waves is unknown. Recent Quantum experiments, using “weak measurements” apparently exhibit waves-with-singularities, the picture De Broglie himself had proposed to go further than the Copenhagen Interpretation of de Broglie’s work.

Should something like the Big Bang make sense, the exact mathematical nature of the matter waves, and how to accommodate those singularities would have to become paramount. (As the purported confirmation of the singularities was published on June 2, 2011 in Science magazine, the depth of these considerations will take some time to reach the society of cosmologists… After all it took more than 40 years to realize that the time-energy uncertainty implied Black Hole evaporation, which should have been immediately obvious!)

Back to our cosmological theory timeline. Time passed. Gamow made fun of the notion of everything coming out of a point, calling it the “Big Bang“. However, the Cosmological Cosmic Background was found at 3 Kelvin, a remnant, it was suggested of said explosion.

That ruled out the Steady State Cosmology, it seemed.

Yet, when regions distant by more than light can travel, they were found to be the same, as if the universe had always been there.

So some physicists postulated that the universe had expanded faster than light by an enormous factor. That was called inflation, caused by a non observed “inflaton field“.

Indecipherable reasonings were rolled out to claim that the mass-energy uncertainty inequality could be made to fabricate matter and energy, as needed. Indecipherable: indeed, a point of infinite density does not make sense in Quantum Physics (which basically insists that there are no points). And never mind that the new Big Bang, cosmological inflation looked exactly like Hoyle’s Steady State theory, after all (as Hoyle himself pointed out to a frosty reception in 1994).

The Big Bang reasonings are full of major assumptions whose proofs are justified by the end, namely the Big Bang, truly a beginning (as found in the Bible?).

For example, how do we know that cosmological photons do not, in some sense, simply age, producing thus the 3 Kelvin background? How do we know that, if the universe can expand so incredibly fast at some point, it could not expand incredibly slow, at some other point? Or even shrink for a while, in a recession, before resuming inflation?

For that matter we do not know why, at this point, the universe is expanding ever faster. Or is it just here?

And what is the evidence that a universe can be created out of nothing? Stanford’ s professor Linde, one of the originator of the inflation cosmology, has been writing articles where he creates universes all over, all the time. There is zero evidence for that.

(There was a whole school of Soviet physicists who, for philosophical reasons, were highly critical of “General Relativity”, starting, correctly with its absurd name; they followed Vladimir Fock 1955 book… which I own. Zeldovich and Linde were among them, they basically discovered much of what was attributed later to Western physicists, to emphasize the glory of plutocratically connected universities!)

Big bang specialists will snarl that I did not mentioned that GUTs (Grand Unified Theories)fit the Big Bang like a glove, so my objection that the Quantum is not integrated in the Big Bang is uninformed.

However, we talk of different things, at different scales. The Big Bang ultimately makes assertions, unsupported assertions, I added, about what is called the Trans-Planckian scale, where Quantum Field Theory breaks down. Conventional Big Bang theory uses basically Riemann’s mathematics from 1854 CE that ignores the waves-with-singularities that the universe is probably made of. That’s fine as a classroom project, it’s not fine as an example of what science can do, or, a fortiori, of what science is.

Big Bang cosmology is not science in the usual meaning of the term. It’s not molecular biology, geology, or material science. Nor mathematics. It’s all too much a bunch of assumptions piled up on top of each other, covered up by ironclad naïve certainty, a contagious illness probably contacted from the Standard Model of particle physics.

Real science demonstrates why Sea Lions and Seals, although they look the same, at first sight, are actually very different, since they evolved from very different ancestors. That illustrates well convergent evolution, when the same mathematics in the environment lead to the same solutions.

Real science demonstrates how stars evolve, going through many stages according to their masses and the nature of the various successive thermonuclear reactions in their core.

Big Bang cosmology uses all too finely tuned reasonings unsupported by firm logic or experimental certainty, all over its theoretical landscape. Possibly, it’s completely false. It is unfortunate that this possible complete falsehood is depicted by physicists eager for cheap fame or book sales as the ultimate in science. In its present state, it is the best creation mythology we have, or an amusing project, but little more than that.

Inflated science is poetry, or metaphor. It is not science. Real science is truth. Real science is what’s left when everything else has been exposed as lies. In the case of the Big Bang, among other things, all other possibilities besides the common interpretation of Cosmic Microwave Background, have not been examined in detail, and thus

Real science is what allows planes to fly, not a bunch of lies and exaggerations held together by the thin veneer of self glorification. Scientific poetry, such as the Big Bang, is closer to science fiction, or mythology.

John Huth concludes his essay reasonably with: “We [Big bang cosmologists]fully realize that our models will extrapolate to conditions that raise difficult issues, like infinite densities. More often than not, the difficult conditions are something we avoid talking about, because, largely, we cannot really test or measure these. If it is inaccessible, it is inaccessible. The work can be perhaps more likened to the work of explorers. Our job is to map new territories, and, if anything, we can only report on territories we’ve explored. What lies beyond the horizon is a matter of speculation.
Responses? Questions? Contact me on Twitter @John Huth”

One would wish cosmologists would be that reasonable, all the time, for all to read and hear. How well one has explored, that is the question. For the longest time, explorers reported the strangest things and monsters they had absolutely seen (an exasperated Aristotle dispatched students to go out and faithfully report on all the biology they could rigorously observe). To claim one has seen light from a big boom may be true, but it is not scientifically demonstrated. Yet.

(And that photons do not age seems unlikely to me for reasons I have mentioned in older essays of mine. I am happy to report that Feynman, no less, approved of my considerations when I evoked them.)

One interest of science is to teach how the faith we have in models can be reconciled with evidence. That the distance between models can be insurmountable is an important lesson in the history of thought. No amount of tweaking could bring the geocentric theory close to the correct one, the heliocentric theory. One had to shatter the faith, to realize that yes, quite possibly, planets were turning around the sun: that is what Buridan and his students concluded around 1300 CE, after rolling over Aristotle’s erroneous physics, and introducing the concept of inertia. However, of course, they added perfidiously, ‘scripture‘ said the sun turned around the Earth, so we may as well believe that, since we cannot tell at this point, for sure.

If the distance between models with scientific pretense can be insurmountable, so can it be, for the distances between mentalities (and, in particular, civilizations). That is the core justification of the crackdown secularism had to implement upon murderous superstitions. (The obvious example being the outlawing of the Celtic or Carthagenese religions, to put it intemporally, not wanting to allude to anything having to do with the sects of Abraham… At least today.)

It’s not turtles all the way down, or turtles everywhere. Genuinely different thought systems and mentalities exist. And the way to explore that is by excluding all other possibilities, the way real science does, and the way that, precisely cosmology of the origins does, and cannot do.

Some will cynically argue that, to get funding to launch satellites and other big science projects, one needs pretty stories to charm the infantile minds of politicians. But I will not go down that slippery slope.

The main interest of science is to teach to the obscure masses how to learn to distinguish truth from fiction. Everything else, however useful, is secondary. To pass a charming fiction such as the Big Bang for a certainty is just the sort of masquerade of the scientific method that genuine scientist will want to eschew.

20 Responses to “Deflating BIG BANG’s Inflation.”

To begin with, as a former electronics engineer, I have never seen an electron. Nor do I know any one else who has. Yet, this contraption on which I write uses zillions of them to post this comment.

Or so we think.

Part of science, which derives from Sciere (to know) is about how much we DON’T know. The part we DO know is what we find useful. It should not be construed as THE TRUTH.

We got by with Newton’s laws for centuries, until on the atomic scale we found they didn’t work. Hence, quantum mechanics. Until it didn’t work. Hence to search for the Higgs Boson, which we think might explain how matter got here in the first place.

And speaking of that first place, 13.4 billion years ago, it was analytically determined by extrapolating backwards using the things we “know” about how the universe is expanding. Logically, it must have started somewhere and at some past time. And for lack of a better term, it was called the “Big Bang.”

But there may not have been a bang at all. It is merely the time at which all that we know of today occupied an infinitely small space and then began to expand.

Courageous you are, indeed, oh OGP!
I have my own far fetched theory, so deriding the Big Bang for being one, would be rather hypocritical. All the more since mine is even more ambitious: it’s about what there is, or rather ought to be, the successor, the explanation of Quantum.
My main insurrection is about the certainty with which those far fetched notions are presented as fact. Electrons are not seen, but a conveninet expalnation, all day long. Not so with the INFLATON FIELD. If used all day long, it creates parallel universes, all day long, something I find offensive. Even more offensive is telling me that’s so right and incredibly obvious.

Anyway, thanks… That was part of something sent to a physics/cosmology site, where I was ignored (although they published much less “scientific” stuff, by people who have no idea about any sort of physics or engineering…) They don’t like it, when I criticize their daily cosmological bread… They say so behind close doors… Amen. But it’s like with Afghanistan: can’t fool all people, all the time. Actually a major neutrino observatory in the USA was withdrawn funding a few days ago…for a full decade, cosmologists were told (!) It was to probe this sort of things, the “early universe”. Maybe more honesty would have helped…
PA

According to your assumption if in the beginning the universe was expanding and therefore traveling at speeds faster than the speed of light then it would have transformed its mass right back into energy and ceased to exists immediately.

But assuming that it didn’t then if it was traveling faster than light in the beginning and and knowing that now it isn’t then that would imply that in front of the expanding universe there exists a force capable of slowing it down.

But if in the beginning there was nothing and then the universe came into being and began accelerating then where did the force that slowed it down come from?

Regardless of what caused the beginning, it is more likely that the universe began to expand at a speed slower than light, (thus keeping it from changing its mass into energy) and then over time it has sped up until today when it is ( I believe) about three quarters of the speed of light.

So what I believe is happening is that the outside edges of the universe will one day reach the speed of light and transform into energy, meanwhile the inside parts of the universe, still below the speed of light continue their expansion and acceleration, when they too reach the speed of light then they will simply vanish back into energy and GOD will start the whole process all over again 🙂

Dear PerfectStranger: You touch upon an important point. However you confuse my position and the one I criticize.

I tried to write an answer to you no less than three times, but each time my computer crashed, and I lost the work. So I am going to change tactic, and write a short essay. Something like: Light & Space, Relative & Absolute.

The subject underlays the key difficulty, both in Relativity and Quantum Field Theory. Sounds daunting. However,physicists avoid to talk about it, and most of them do not understand the point… which can be explained to the public, within the most basic math… Or so I claim, and will try to demonstrate. I have a formation at the most fundamental level in both math and physics, so I am better able to appreciate the problems at their interface.
PA

I’m not too bad on Quantum Mechanics, I still have my original work on quarks and the “division of mass” principle but to this day I don’t understand how or why they say that a Proton takes almost forever to disintegrate and a Neutron takes less time … If I could understand just that one thing … I would have the entire thing understood in my head. but … so far .. no Info on the matter …(as usual)

I did some work on a spreadsheet and it turns out that if the Proton were to disintegrate in roughly the same period of time as a Neutron, then ONE SINGLE PROTON could eventually build the entire universe ,,and with all its known properties.

But I finished with science many years ago and I am way behind in most of the new findings.

Dear PS: Is your idea related to the Wheeler-Feynman thing of building all electronics (say) with just one electron going back and forth in time???

As far as proton in concerned, it’s just found to be stable. Some variants of QCD predict it’s not… Neutron and proton turn into each other modulo injected electron (for the P) and ejected electron (for natural beta decay in 15 minutes half life…) This sort of physics, so far is more related to cooking…
OK, I am a bit grotesquely unfair here:that most of the mass of baryons (such as proton, neutron) is due to relativistic mass gain is astounding, and fascinating… And moreover apparently true. Why do they need the Higgs already?
PA

Dear OGP: What I was obscurely alluding to is that the case of standard QCD shows one can generate mass from simply motion and energy. The Higgs like argument is not the only way to generate mass, it turns out. I don’t know much what’s going on in that soup either, but it seems to me that we will know much more pretty soon.

One of the things that has sort of killed the SUSY String Model, besides being untestable, has been that there are more than ten million models or so imaginable, at first sight.

It’s good to be anywhere, as Keith Richards would say. But not necessarily when making a theory. Not to say the Higgs theories are all over… But alluding to it…
The LHC should get 6 sigma signals soon, if there is a light Higgs. Some claim they had something, but 2 sigma signals mean absolutely nothing in my opinion.
So far there has been zero new physics from LHC so some have been perhaps anxious to generate some buzz…
PA

Drat! there were no more “Reply” thingys so I have to use a new comment box.

I’m using 1984 figures here, it’s been that long for me 🙂

Mass of Proton = 1.007276 u
Mass of Neutron = 1.008665 u

Turns out that due to their composition the mass difference between the Proton and the Neutron is also the mass difference between the Up Quark and the Down Quark.

Then doing a bit of maths with those three figures one will find that not only can you figure out the mass for all hadrons and baryons, you can also find out their energy levels, time of decomposition and so on.

Within two years I had all the figures on paper that it took them some 40 years to attain ..obviously I had their work to guide me, but the one thing that is always missing is how the heat contained within a quark turns into a magnetic field and then from there an electric field … (quarks do not appear to have ferro-magnetic properties nor should they as that comes in further up the scale of things)

But if we could find out how that happens then we would have the Unified Theory in the bag, no problems.

Then some guy here at the University of Wollongong spent 3 million dollars and manged to come up with what they call shadow electrons .. ie .. he made a teleportation device, all the beginnings of one at least .. so he had it, he had all the answers…..

He figured that by doing something to an electron in one place (i don’t know how) he could make another one appear somewhere else … and he did it … It is now known as Quantum Teleportation as is a brand new field in science .. some of us here now believe the Higgs particle behaves in the same way. 🙂

and I am waiting … and waiting for more info on these little shadow electrons so I can finish my own work… but so far, no info whatsoever has become available .. so ..as usual .. I never get to finish what I started.

I figure the military have a hold of it and won’t release it anytime soon, apparently it is fairly advanced stuff. So yes, maybe it is possible that with one single electron one can build an entire flow, but who knows, there simply isn’t enough info being released at the moment.

(PS: It is now known that a proton will disintegrate in a period of 10^24 years or so… not too sure who did the calculations)

Here is a link I found but I’m not sure if it’s the right one as I can’t get it to open for me, maybe it will for you .. most likely my software is out of date of corrupt.

In case you are interested how we managed to do so much, back in 2000 the government gave my region a $700 million research grant, companies from all over the world came here to take advantage of what we had and now there is an entire community living and working here, they even built an entire suburb (almost) specifically designed to house all the research equipment and so on.

Wow, Patrice! Thanks for the link to this (which I missed when posted). What a delightful trip through the history of modern cosmology.

Having been within the sphere of influence of fundamentalist Christians in my formative years, I have never quite managed to throw off some nagging concerns that hidden deep within theoretical physics are some intractably circular arguments (such as that for using red-shift to determine distances to galaxies). However, the Horizon programme just broadcast – as linked to by Paul – does an admirable job of explaining this (and much more besides).

Despite all the advances made in recent decades – the cosmic background radiation is surely a great example of a theoretical abstraction being proved right by subsequent observation (only made possible by the advance of technology) – I am left entirely baffled my multiverses, string theory and 22-dimensions of space time.

However, the Big Bang theory – so named as a form of ridicule by one of its early detractors – seems hard to dispute simply because of the fact that we are here to observe a Universe that is very clearly expanding. The fact that the Laws of Physics as we understand them breakdown in its earliest moments does not change the fact that they can explain everything that has happened since…

So, I find your attack upon one of the foundations of modern cosmology hard to understand; especially since you have no alternative explanation for what Inflation theory attempts to.

I really would recommend that you watch the Horizon/em> programme that Paul and I have watched.

Thanks Martin! well the Big Bang (word from Gamow, who got the initial idea, from his thermonuclear bomb studies) argument, as it stands, is circular, and leads immediately to multiverses. I condemn the Big Bang because of its inflaton field, which leads immediately to the absurdity of multiverses and violation of the energy principle.

Yuri Milner gave a three million dollars price each to Guth and Linde, basically for the inflaton field and the multiverse. Sheer fantasy. I have a much better theory, but I am not connected to the right monkeys, never mind.

Inflation is all too many things to all many people. It’s a vague, ad hoc idea. Why not to run it in reverse?
That the universe has changed, there is no doubt. This is the strongest argument FOR the Big Bang. Other arguments are pretty much circular (like helium’s abundance can only be explained by BB, as the universe did not last long enough, with known stars to create helium, and we know that’s so, because that’s what the BB says).

But even then, the universe could have cycled.

My attack is against those who presents all this as established science. I do have alternatives, and I am not the only one. Just we don’t show up on TV, because we are not cute like Hawking, and our story of complex logic does not sit well with the Twitter crowd.
PA

I did not realise Inflation theory leads to multiverses – I thought it was just an explanation for what the Standard Model cannot explain. Oh dear. Maybe I shall just revert to saying “God did it” – it was much more straight forward.

Mr Aymes, I have a important precision : I don’t understand what I gone say ! And As I’m not physician, or nobel price,, I won’t talk with math.
But I always been interest by everything. And as universe is everything, I naturally try to dig what is universe. And what is hidden beyond « big bang ». I see a « good » video on YT about it. And what is presented for « the cold death » (complete dissolution of universe by endless growing) drive my reason in a strange way : What will happen when gravitation can’t stand last stars in their form, and after, what happen, when forces which keep atom in their form, can’t do their job, and after, and after …. what will happen when last forces can’t keep undissociable (quark??) element in their form ? Yes, what will happen ?
Which kind of power will be liberated when each « quark » will be at 15 light-year (or more. Or less) of the nearest « quark » ? What will happen ? Each « quark » perhaps blow in the same time. And so all of the universe (I don’t imagine the size of these « thing ». But no matter, it’s not important) will « blow » from everywere at the same time and in all direction. Isn’t it a « singularization » ?
I repeat : I don’t understand what I just say !
If you don’t know from where you came, just see where you go.

Thanks for yours words. I am not more a physician than a physicist (or traductor) you’re completly right !!
And I’m totally agree with you : nobody understands the coming and going of the universe. Even best Physicist. I fell of my chair when I learnt many year ago that nobody knew what light is. And recently, when I read in Science&Vie (that I read from my 12 years old, and which opened my reflexion about a lot of subject) that universe could be older than 15 billion years (perhaps 30 or more…) The more we know, the more we realize our ignorance.
I often think that, when we talk about a lot of subject (perhaps everything … even “we”), we seems to be as “primitive” people who imagined “le culte du cargo”.
But for the subject we talk about (universe, big bang, ..) I’m really surprised that nobody talk about one of the more important parameter : time. We don’t know what is it, but every reasoning is based on…
En francais, je dirai : il semble que l’on résonne plus que l’on ne raisonne. Le Grand Architecte doit bien se marrer a l’écoute de ce concert. Le plus drôle serait qu’il n’y ait même pas cet auditeur a l’écoute!

Forgive me if you have addressed this elsewhere, and if so please point me towards it, but is there a very brief summary of what you mean by this statement:
“I have my own far fetched theory….: it’s about what there is, or rather ought to be, the successor, the explanation of Quantum.”
I am learning about quantum cosmology and came across your blog.
I would also be interested in what you think of the Holographic Principle. The equations involve Plancks constant, Boltzmans constant, the Gravitational constant and Pi as well as measurements of the Universes comoving diameter and mass. I am particularly intrigued with the Boltzman Bound, Information and Entropy at Cosmological scales and the holographic idea.
Just a real novice intrigued with this stuff.

Dear Andrew: Welcome to this site, and to “Quantum Cosmology” (whatever that is! ;-)!)
I am going to put out more physics essays, starting with one on “holonomic time” (by own invention/consideration).

I don’t know what the “holographic principle” is. I have heard of it for three decades or so, but I don’t get it. I view it as a vague proto-idea, wish… Maybe just wishful?

“Universe diameter?” The problem is that, in a differentiable manifold, there is something called the exponential diameter, at any point, and that maybe what you mean by “comoving diameter”. We have no idea how big the universe is. None. Even in the official Big Bang theory, the “singularity” is not in space (although it could be), but in time.

All the stuff about “entropy”, “information”, etc. has to be viewed suspiciously, as it is unknown whether or not an isolated (whatever that means) particle (whatever that is) has a thermodynamics, or not (it’s actually unknown).

Let’s say there are 200 big questions out there, but only 20 are usually evoked. Anyway… I have several foundations of physics essays on the site. To come back to the title of that one, here, is what I will do next. It’s not just that we have a new mechanism for inflation… Dark Energy…
PA